Read The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic Online
Authors: David Limbaugh
The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic (28 page)
BOOK: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic
6.3Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
GREEN JOBS—THE RECORD
Clean energy is not living up to its grandiose hype. President Obama at one point promised to create 5 million green jobs in ten years, while California Governor Jerry Brown said he envisioned half a million clean-technology jobs in his state by 2020. But even the
New York Times
conceded that “the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream.”
69
The green-tech program that included Solyndra involved a staggering $38.6 billion loan program that Obama claimed would create or save 65,000 jobs. But two years after it began, the program had created only 3,545 new, permanent jobs, according to Energy Department figures.
70
New York Times
conceded that “the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream.”
69
The green-tech program that included Solyndra involved a staggering $38.6 billion loan program that Obama claimed would create or save 65,000 jobs. But two years after it began, the program had created only 3,545 new, permanent jobs, according to Energy Department figures.
70
Eventually, even key Democrats began to publicly criticize Obama’s green schemes. “You know, the green jobs have been about a lot of talk and not a lot has been happening on that,” observed Congresswoman Maxine Waters. “All of this talk about the green jobs never materialized.” Other influential members of the Congressional Black Caucus agreed. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said, “African-Americans out there were saying, ‘What do we have in common with this new, green technology?’”
A July 2011
Washington Post
-ABC poll showed that rank-and-file liberal Democrats were losing faith in the program as well. “The number of liberal Democrats who strongly support Obama’s record on jobs plunged 22 points from 53 percent last year to 31 percent,” according to the
Post
. But Obama is deaf to the feedback, continuing his showpiece visits to renewable energy firms. One of them was Johnson Controls, Inc., a Michigan firm upon which the government bestowed $300 million to create 150 green jobs, or $2 million per job.
71
Washington Post
-ABC poll showed that rank-and-file liberal Democrats were losing faith in the program as well. “The number of liberal Democrats who strongly support Obama’s record on jobs plunged 22 points from 53 percent last year to 31 percent,” according to the
Post
. But Obama is deaf to the feedback, continuing his showpiece visits to renewable energy firms. One of them was Johnson Controls, Inc., a Michigan firm upon which the government bestowed $300 million to create 150 green jobs, or $2 million per job.
71
When Obama talks about jobs, he invariably emphasizes green jobs.
72
And yet, the signs are everywhere that green jobs are a bust. The Brookings Institution released a study showing that clean-technology jobs constituted only 2 percent of the nation’s jobs and only slightly more—2.2 percent—in the Silicon Valley. Overall, federal and state efforts to stimulate job creation, according to the
New York Times
, “have largely failed, government records show.”
73
72
And yet, the signs are everywhere that green jobs are a bust. The Brookings Institution released a study showing that clean-technology jobs constituted only 2 percent of the nation’s jobs and only slightly more—2.2 percent—in the Silicon Valley. Overall, federal and state efforts to stimulate job creation, according to the
New York Times
, “have largely failed, government records show.”
73
Consider a typical Obama stimulus project: $186 million was allocated to weatherize homes, with the result that California, as of August 2011, had spent only half the money and created some 538 full-time jobs in the preceding quarter. What accounted for the delay in the project’s implementation? Another liberal requirement: the federal Department of Labor had to determine the prevailing wage standards. Even after the postponement, however, “the program never really caught on.” Sheeraz Haji, a market research firm’s chief executive, said, “Companies and public policy officials really overestimated how much consumers care about energy efficiency. People care about their wallet and the comfort of their home, but it’s not a sexy thing.”
74
74
Typical of such high-minded liberal projects, clean energy job training programs have also failed miserably. California’s Economic Development Department records show that $59 million of government and private funds assigned to green jobs training and apprenticeship have yielded only 719 jobs, a staggering $82,000 per job. Of course, liberals cannot concede that government is unable to artificially create demand where it doesn’t exist. “The demand’s just not there to take this to scale,” exclaimed the project manager at one of the companies that received cash infusions. Other activists complain that these green jobs would take hold if only Washington would do a better job of stacking the deck against conventional energy.
The
Wall Street Journal
likewise reported that while the solar industry has long been viewed by some as a remedy to our dependence on fossil fuels, those aspirations are rapidly disappearing as solar panel manufacturers continue to suffer through bankruptcies, cratering stock values, and mountains of debt. Ironically, part of the blame lies in a surfeit of supply, much of it generated by government subsidies facilitated by “well-intentioned” environmentalist liberals who apparently believed the power of their beneficence could overcome market forces.
Wall Street Journal
likewise reported that while the solar industry has long been viewed by some as a remedy to our dependence on fossil fuels, those aspirations are rapidly disappearing as solar panel manufacturers continue to suffer through bankruptcies, cratering stock values, and mountains of debt. Ironically, part of the blame lies in a surfeit of supply, much of it generated by government subsidies facilitated by “well-intentioned” environmentalist liberals who apparently believed the power of their beneficence could overcome market forces.
While Solyndra’s collapse captured the headlines in the last few months of 2011, at least five other solar panel makers filed for bankruptcy or insolvency around the same time. Nine of the ten largest publicly traded solar companies took a hit in 2011, and many others were experiencing difficulties as stock prices fell some 57 percent in the sector.
75
These reckless experiments are more evidence that even tens of millions of federal and state dollars thrown at pet liberal projects don’t create jobs or stimulate the economy. Liberals may refuse to acknowledge the invisible hand of the market, but they are subject to it nonetheless.
REGULATING COAL OUT OF BUSINESS75
These reckless experiments are more evidence that even tens of millions of federal and state dollars thrown at pet liberal projects don’t create jobs or stimulate the economy. Liberals may refuse to acknowledge the invisible hand of the market, but they are subject to it nonetheless.
A key energy source to be replaced by green energy, at least in the liberal imagination, is coal. Obama came to office vowing to adopt regulations that would bankrupt companies which build new coal plants,
76
and as president he has done his best in this regard, pressuring the coal industry from every which way, seemingly determined to drive the industry out of his green energy Neverland.
76
and as president he has done his best in this regard, pressuring the coal industry from every which way, seemingly determined to drive the industry out of his green energy Neverland.
When the EPA adopted a new policy that tightened water quality standards for valley fills at surface coalmines in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Tennessee, the coal industry filed a lawsuit to challenge the rules. Arguing the move would eliminate tens of thousands of jobs and raise electricity prices, hundreds of coal miners traveled to Capitol Hill to protest the administration, claiming it was trying to wipe out the entire coal industry.
It’s hard not to conclude that at the very least, the EPA was trying to wipe out mountain-top removal mining. After all, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admitted the goal was to enforce a standard so strict that few, if any, permits would be issued for valley fills. West Virginia’s senior state senator, Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV, bluntly declared that Jackson “doesn’t understand the sensitivities economically of what unemployment means. Her job is relatively simple: clean everything up, keep it clean, don’t do anything to disturb perfection. Well, you can’t do coal and do that at the same time. God didn’t make coal to be an easy thing to work with.”
The EPA denied these regulations would either weaken the economy or cause unemployment. But U.S. Senator Jim Webb, Virginia Democrat, supported Rockefeller. “We are not going to let the EPA regulate coal out of business,” he proclaimed. Also attending the rally was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said that the Obama administration and the current Congress are the most anti-coal executive and legislative bodies in the nation’s history.
77
“AN UNWARRANTED POWER GRAB”77
In July 2011, the EPA launched the next round of its assault against coal plants, announcing its Clean Air Transport Rule ostensibly aimed at curbing smog and soot at power plants in 30-plus states. The rule—whose compliance costs were estimated as high as $1 trillion over ten years, and which even the EPA admitted could cost the economy as much as $90 billion annually by 2020—outraged businesses.
78
John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, called the proposal “the single most expensive environmental regulation in U.S. history, a job-killing rule it is under no obligation to impose on the struggling economy.”
79
78
John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, called the proposal “the single most expensive environmental regulation in U.S. history, a job-killing rule it is under no obligation to impose on the struggling economy.”
79
In September 2011, as Obama moved into reelection mode and the public showed little support for another job-killing, economy-crushing EPA regulation, Obama shelved the proposal—though EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson noted her agency will revisit the issue in 2013, after the election.
80
“Even President Obama recognizes that his administration’s environmental agenda, with all its new rules and regulations, is a massive job killer and is destroying the economy,” said Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “What is shameful about the President’s decision to delay the new ozone rule is that it’s all about improving his chances of being reelected and has nothing to do with the economic damage that the rule would do. The fact that the President still wants to go ahead after he gets reelected with a regulation that has been estimated to cost $1 trillion a year shows that he could care less about the U.S. economy and the millions of people who have lost their jobs.”
81
80
“Even President Obama recognizes that his administration’s environmental agenda, with all its new rules and regulations, is a massive job killer and is destroying the economy,” said Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “What is shameful about the President’s decision to delay the new ozone rule is that it’s all about improving his chances of being reelected and has nothing to do with the economic damage that the rule would do. The fact that the President still wants to go ahead after he gets reelected with a regulation that has been estimated to cost $1 trillion a year shows that he could care less about the U.S. economy and the millions of people who have lost their jobs.”
81
But the smog rule was hardly the EPA’s sole job-destroying scheme. The agency has developed six other rules that together would entail an annual cost to the economy of $35 billion, according to the EPA’s own figures. One of these proposed regulations is the area source rule, which would regulate mercury emission from boilers that provide heat and power for buildings throughout the nation. The Small Business Administration warned that the rule would “impose significant new regulatory costs” on businesses, cities, and other entities, but the EPA was unmoved. As the Heritage Foundation’s Diane Katz observed, “The agency has long been a hyperactive regulator, but the rate at which it is now imposing ever-costlier rules had accelerated dramatically. Congress must act to curb the agency’s unwarranted power grab if it hopes to see any meaningful economic recovery.”
82
82
Another costly new regulation, the cross-state air pollution rule, forces twenty-seven states to cut air pollution that is supposedly pushed across state lines by wind. Luminant, a Texas energy company, said the rule is forcing it to close several of its facilities, costing 500 jobs. “We have hundreds of employees who have spent their entire professional careers at Luminant and its predecessor companies,” said Luminant CEO David Campbell. “At every step of this process, we have tried to minimize these impacts, and it truly saddens me that we are being compelled to take the actions we’ve announced today. We have filed suit to try to avoid these consequences.”
83
The administration appeared to have no interest in granting a reprieve from these rigorous deadlines, the importance of American jobs paling in its eyes next to the goal of a pristine environment.
83
The administration appeared to have no interest in granting a reprieve from these rigorous deadlines, the importance of American jobs paling in its eyes next to the goal of a pristine environment.
In March 2012, the EPA proposed a new rule that, if implemented, could represent the
coup de grace
to the coal industry. The regulation would require any new power plant to emit less than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity produced. Because coal plants average 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, new plants are highly unlikely to meet the revised standard. “This standard effectively bans new coal plants,” observed Joseph Stanko, a lawyer who represents utility companies. “So I don’t see how that is an ‘all of the above’ energy policy.” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, exulted that the new rule “captures the end of an era”—yet, displaying the group’s trademark extremism, he argued that even this draconian regulation is “not sufficient.”
84
coup de grace
to the coal industry. The regulation would require any new power plant to emit less than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity produced. Because coal plants average 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, new plants are highly unlikely to meet the revised standard. “This standard effectively bans new coal plants,” observed Joseph Stanko, a lawyer who represents utility companies. “So I don’t see how that is an ‘all of the above’ energy policy.” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, exulted that the new rule “captures the end of an era”—yet, displaying the group’s trademark extremism, he argued that even this draconian regulation is “not sufficient.”
84
There can be no doubt about the intent of this rule, which EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson revealed during an interview in November 2011. When asked about EPA regulations that are forcing the closure of coal-fired power plants, she replied, “First off, EPA doesn’t require shutting down of any plant…. Some businesses are investing in nuclear; some are looking at natural gas. There are states that are leading the way on solar or wind…. What EPA’s role is to do is to level the playing field so that pollution costs are not exported to the population but rather companies have to look at the pollution potential of any fuel or any process or any plant or any utility when they’re making investment decisions.”
85
85
Or, stated another way, the administration fully intends, as Obama announced long ago, to bankrupt the coal industry.
Barack Obama said he wanted a transformational presidency, and this grandiosity is on full display in his energy agenda. Using every available method, from EPA regulations to unilaterally cancelling the Yucca Mountain project, Obama is putting relentless pressure on certain disfavored industries, with coal and nuclear power topping the list alongside oil. Because nothing is available to replace the output of these firms, he seeks to advance technological progress on untested green energy projects through the sheer force of government. Blinded by his own ideology, he discounts the mounting costs of his program, pressuring his agencies to rush through billions of dollars in loan guarantees for firms like Solyndra that many observers, even among his own team, view as risky if not outright reckless.
BOOK: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic
6.3Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
Other books
Crash Into Me by K.M. Scott
Earth by Timothy Good
Found You by Mary Sangiovanni
E. W. Hornung_A J Raffles 02 by The Black Mask
Eyes of the Soul by Rene Folsom
The Drowning Tree by Carol Goodman
Darkness Falls by A.C. Warneke
The Blight of Muirwood by Jeff Wheeler
Alexander Altmann A10567 by Suzy Zail
Wet and Wilde by Tawny Taylor
